I have argued logically, soundly and rationally God is an impossibility to be real.

Hmm... Thereby meaning that your interlocutors have not done so?

“Absolute perfection” or let's be honest, “perfection”, is not an oxymoron. There is no rule or law that states perfection is impossible, you just think it is. Furthermore, the added “absolute” is only used for emphasis, the term “perfection” necessarily describes an absolute state (I don't think you'll find the term "absolute perfection" in any of the major dictionaries) as we've discussed previously. Because, as you've stated, you want your syllogism to work in the same way as "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" you must be able to show that a perfect God is an oxymoron, which I don't think you can, and there's a reason for that which you're either ignoring or unaware of.

I have also topped it up with why the majority of humans have the instincts to believe in a God which is illusory and irrational. The reason is psychological, i.e. driven by an inherent existential crisis. If you look at it from this psychological angle, my argument will make sense.

Is this supposed to represent some kind of fact? This is your widely discussed theory, it does not IMV add any solidity to your argument, its just your take on why people are theists. The Abrahamic religions do not explicitly purport to deal with existential crisis, I can understand why you say that they do, but that is your interpretation. If they do, then that may be a secondary effect of the religion, not the primary cause of why people believe in God.

I have argued logically, soundly and rationally God is an impossibility to be real.

Hmm... Thereby meaning that your interlocutors have not done so?

I have not come across any logically sound counter arguments to my premises.I have intellectual integrity, if my premises are proven wrong convincingly I will accept it or change them.

“Absolute perfection” or let's be honest, “perfection”, is not an oxymoron. There is no rule or law that states perfection is impossible, you just think it is. Furthermore, the added “absolute” is only used for emphasis, the term “perfection” necessarily describes an absolute state (I don't think you'll find the term "absolute perfection" in any of the major dictionaries) as we've discussed previously. Because, as you've stated, you want your syllogism to work in the same way as "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" you must be able to show that a perfect God is an oxymoron, which I don't think you can, and there's a reason for that which you're either ignoring or unaware of.

Why should I prove a perfect God is an oxymoron.

Note an absolute perfect God is a possibility in thoughts only but not in reality. Anyone can think of an absolute perfect God and believe in it for whatever reasons, wherein certain cases it results in terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME theists.

My argument is, there are two perspectives to perfect and absolute, i.e.

1. relative perfection2. absolute perfection

I have already explain it is very common to see the term "perfection" in the relative sense, e.g. perfect scores in sports, perfect score in an objective tests, etc.Since relative perfection is attributable to fallible humans, we have to differentiate and qualify God perfection as absolute, i.e. unconditional.This is the reason why I qualify God's as absolute perfection.

I have also topped it up with why the majority of humans have the instincts to believe in a God which is illusory and irrational. The reason is psychological, i.e. driven by an inherent existential crisis. If you look at it from this psychological angle, my argument will make sense.

Is this supposed to represent some kind of fact? This is your widely discussed theory, it does not IMV add any solidity to your argument, its just your take on why people are theists. The Abrahamic religions do not explicitly purport to deal with existential crisis, I can understand why you say that they do, but that is your interpretation. If they do, then that may be a secondary effect of the religion, not the primary cause of why people believe in God.

It is not an established fact but a hypothesis at this stage.

If you have read all the religious texts and behavior of believers it is very obvious their theistic and non-theistic activities are reducible to the inherent existential crisis which is very subliminal and not brought to the conscious level.I have discussed this point before, it is very noticeable the main purpose of Buddhism [Buddha Story re death], Hinduism [reincarnation], Abrahamic religions [eternal life in heaven] and primitive religions are reducible to the existential crisis.

Buddhism [non-theistic] has turned this existential crisis towards the psychological perspective and its attempts are to rewire the brain to deal with this crisis without any evil and violent elements.

I believe the problem of theism and the related inherent existential crisis need to be dealt psychology after ALL activities of the theists and others religionists are leveraged primarily from the brain [i.e. psychology].

Your limitation is simply to ignore the role of the brain in contributing primarily to theism and thus ignore its associated evil and violent acts by SOME evil prone believers.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have not come across any logically sound counter arguments to my premises.I have intellectual integrity, if my premises are proven wrong convincingly I will accept it or change them.

Proof in philosophical argument is rare, because most of the issues it deals with are precisely NOT things like geometric proofs or symbolic logic proofs. IOW they deal with things, just as many of the issues around you beliefs around theism, that are radically affected by such floppy things as semantics, POV, psychology, human physiology, language in general. Further you are assuming that your own introspection based conclusions - that you are willing to notice compelling counterarguments- are not fallible.

Here we are dealing with metaphysics questions, yet you are expecting counter proofs and that you have made a proof. That you have not. You have made an argument. Opinions differ about how good that argument is, but it is not a proof.

Why should I prove a perfect God is an oxymoron.

Note an absolute perfect God is a possibility in thoughts only but not in reality. Anyone can think of an absolute perfect God and believe in it for whatever reasons, wherein certain cases it results in terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME theists.

I have also topped it up with why the majority of humans have the instincts to believe in a God which is illusory and irrational. The reason is psychological, i.e. driven by an inherent existential crisis. If you look at it from this psychological angle, my argument will make sense.

Ultimately what is primary is the human brain and its psychology, thus my insistence theism has to be reduced to human psychology.

Any issue would have the human brain and its psychology as primary. Further what you do is present a very simplified version of human psychology and then universalize it. Then call it a proof.

Your own psychology is affecting both the contents of your argument and your certainty that you have proven something.

I have not come across any logically sound counter arguments to my premises.I have intellectual integrity, if my premises are proven wrong convincingly I will accept it or change them.

I think there have been. Regardless, you believe that your argument is perfect, relative to the rules of logic etc., with that belief in mind how are you going to accept any counter-arguments as being valid? Do you not realise the conundrum there?

Why should I prove a perfect God is an oxymoron.

Because, you said that your argument is similar to "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real".

Note an absolute perfect God is a possibility in thoughts only but not in reality. Anyone can think of an absolute perfect God and believe in it for whatever reasons, wherein certain cases it results in terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME theists.

I think there may or may not be some kind of “higher power” which can be likened to what is described as “God”. If such a thing exists, whether that thing is perfect or not is I think a matter of perception. With so many different religions and views about God, what one religion's adherents perceive as a perfect God may not be perceived as perfect by others. I mean, Christians generally eschew the Islamic God, yet both perceive their God as perfect. It is I think very problematic to define a perfect God that is universally accepted.

My argument is 'God is an impossibility to be real' to the extent of 1. delivering real holy texts via prophets/messenger compelling believers to obey his words and commands.2. answering real prayers of believers.

Many would disagree with you regarding the prophets, and there are many people who've had things they've prayed for come to fruition. For you and me that doesn't confirm that God is real, but for them it sticks a “verified” stamp on the holy text. For some people, aspects of life unfold as the prophets said they would.

My argument is, there are two perspectives to perfect and absolute, i.e.1. relative perfection2. absolute perfection

I know, but I don't believe that is correct. If you research the term “perfection” you'll find that there cannot be degrees of perfection – that something cannot be more than perfect. Perfection is the absolute.

I have already explain it is very common to see the term "perfection" in the relative sense, e.g. perfect scores in sports, perfect score in an objective tests, etc.Since relative perfection is attributable to fallible humans, we have to differentiate and qualify God perfection as absolute, i.e. unconditional.This is the reason why I qualify God's as absolute perfection.

If you do some research you'll see that this is not correct. You are just emphasising. Perfection is relative to criteria, such as being flawless. God's purported perfection is described by different criteria than we use to describe human things, but we are still describing perfection.

It is not an established fact but a hypothesis at this stage.

So why are you claiming that it supports your argument, which you claim is a logically sound? Surely a logically sound argument is both supported factually, and axiomatic.

Here is a excerpt for Quora which I think is correct: "For something to be "proven" as true using logic, it has to be derived from premises that are universally accepted, which we call "axioms" - and universal acceptability is elusive."

Do you think that your argument fulfills that criteria, and if so why?

If you have read all the religious texts and behavior of believers it is very obvious their theistic and non-theistic activities are reducible to the inherent existential crisis which is very subliminal and not brought to the conscious level.I have discussed this point before, it is very noticeable the main purpose of Buddhism [Buddha Story re death], Hinduism [reincarnation], Abrahamic religions [eternal life in heaven] and primitive religions are reducible to the existential crisis.

This is reducible to interpretation, not fact.

Your limitation is simply to ignore the role of the brain in contributing primarily to theism and thus ignore its associated evil and violent acts by SOME evil prone believers.

A person can be naturally intelligent and able to figure things out, which you seem to be. But that can easily turn into arrogance and over-belief in their abilities. No matter how naturally intelligent a person is, without formal training in a field there are going to be errors and mistakes. I don't discuss the role of the brain in contributing to theism, because I don't know enough about the field. I know a little, the basics, but to make the claims that you do, one would expect you to hold at least one degree in psychology, I don't even think the academia make the kind of claims you do, you're really over-shooting IMV.

Therefore it is very logical to look seriously into the brain [human psychology] as a significant variable in the resultant theistic-based evil & violent act.

Granted, but you have to know what you're doing. Would you see a doctor who told you that he didn't go to medical school, but he's read a lot about medicine?

If we take away the God & it texts variables, then we have,Human brains = evil & violent plus good acts

i.e. ZERO theistic-based evil & Violence acts.

A teenager (or younger) could surmise that Prismatic. You think taking the idea of God away from people would be a good idea? What guarantee do you have that would solve anything? Some people don't do evil because they believe in God, its a complex variable with many different layers. You don't seem to appreciate the subtleties.

Prismatic wrote:Btw, my argument is based on what current theists [especially the Abrahamic] are believing what God is.

The current idea of God inevitable lead to a perfect, most superior and absolute God which are stated and implied in their holy texts.

These theists believed in a real God, i.e. so real where the real God delivered his message and command via prophets and messengers that all humans must adhere to and obey. Some of these God's messages include commanding the believer to kill non-believers and this is very evident, i.e.https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore when we prove God is an impossibility to be real, then, there is no real God who delivered any texts via humans. Thus there is no God to command believers to kill non-believers.

If you argue for God like you do above, you will allow room for theists to creep back to their holy texts, the Bible, Quran or Torah, etc.

My argument is a 100% completely cut off from any chance of any one relying on God's words to kill non-believers as a divine duty.

Artimas wrote:I think what they meant by saying to kill unbelievers, is that to kill paganism or other enemies of war, the texts also could have been altered, should understand the context of when it was the written, that stuff should be removed from modern texts. It's a matter of common sense to weed out what is relevant and what is not based off of a perception of time now Vs then.

I don't think the texts mean a real god I think that is people's misinterpretation of what the text originally is saying.

It is not obligated to make sense to you or me but if you or I are obligated to make sense of it, we may.

God is a balance between consciousness and subconscious, as a collective. God has the ability to manifest with satan and/or Jesus attributes based on environment and power of will. Dark and light sides of subconsciousness, the state of duality that evolved into us, it's all just unique language and symbolism of a reoccurring message of duality evolving, which is "god" manifesting into and as all life and the whole desi

The basic Abrahamic belief for the common man is supposed to be based off of a common sense that appears to not be so common anymore.

Btw, I spent 3 years on a full time basis studying, researching and analyzing the Quran, plus learning basic Quranic Arabic. Thus what I have stated about Islam is more reasonable and justified than your guesses.

God is a balance between consciousness and subconscious, as a collective.It is not what you think God should be but rather what is Islam is very specifically stated in the Quran which is supposedly perfected by God and is immutable.Given the psychology of existing theists I don't believe your argument will have any influence on the majority of Muslims and other fundamental theists.

As I had argued, if you keep the idea of God alive in some ways, it will definitely provide room for the Islamists [a significant SOME] to hang on to the idea of God to soothe their psychological desperation. Thus their obligation [divine duty] is to carry out the commands of their God based on the immutable commands of their perfect and most superior God in exchange for a promise they will avoid Hell and enter Paradise with eternal life.

When God is an impossibility to be real, the Islamists will have no grounds to insist there is a real God which delivered to them a perfect immutable holy texts to be complied with. Thus we eliminate any possibility of theistic-based evils and violence [100% ZERO] as commanded by a real God.

When it is proven God is an impossibility to be real, and if anyone commit evil or violent acts, then it cannot be from a God [since an impossibility] thus the evil is from the person[s] inherent evil nature which will have to be dealt with by various means.

I understand you completely and would have been on your side before I came to an understanding of I and self along with environment.

You can study it your whole life and still not understand it, do you study to answer or refute or did you try to learn to understand? You are missing the point of what "God" truly is while focusing on what "God" shouldn't or 'can't be' based off of a misinterpretation of texts and wanting/needing to prove that misinterpretation wrong along with a misunderstanding of context/metaphor and how to correlate meaning to imagery/symbolism. Perfect is an understanding, it's a balance to be reached, when you understand the full implications of this design we are in and also can understand self and it's interaction with it, you too will deem it "perfect" by design, it's brilliantly evolved. Reality and the mind. "God" is very observable, the best form to observe of it are children, animals and life without consciousness(awareness of their own instincts)

But I am not saying what God should be, I am saying what God is, when it boils down to it and you finally understand how things work based off of chaos and order, you will find it a system based off of grand order with great fortitude.

How can the idea of "God" be wrong when it is ones interpretation and expressed opinion with no understanding of it in the ways of which it is meant to be understood? This doesn't make god wrong, merely their acted out views and misunderstandings. There is no avoiding hell if ones intent is merely to avoid hell, that is an ingenuine way to live and will be full of regrets ultimately. Guilt, judgement by subconscious, these things are what it refers to by hell, a living in ignorance and committing acts out of such, with intent and awareness out of ignorance/evil makes the judgement worse when one actually reflects upon self and their actions/reactions.

Paradise is described in the book as what can be if man controls his ego to manifest as the one willing to learn to understand for the sake of understanding, be humble and morally just, when one aligns with self and also aligns together as a collective species to build something great, it takes a lot of work on self, especially when in a backwards mindset society/mass populace. "Eternal life" can either be metaphor for the energy of which we repeatedly recycle as due to the law of conservation or it could mean the many temporary egos of man, a collective of life always growing/evolving.

The evils are stemming from ignorance, a lack of understanding, not from "theism" you see. If a man shoots a gun, does a man shoot it or does the gun shoot itself? It is simply, people lacking the education of how to think correctly by following the rules and universal laws, before they apply their opinion upon reality, this is ignorance and a misunderstanding of the texts and or reality, so can you blame them for their lack of understanding/knowing? It is up to us to spark curiosity to get them to learn, to guide them to an understanding.

"God" is an understanding. It's a perception, a state of mind. It is associated with "enlightenment" or perhaps even above enlightenment. When they say "god" delivered the texts it is meaning, a man wrote down his subconscious thoughts and described everything as it is with an understanding of what they were and still are, he attached meaning to symbols and imagery. It is the way of which they look at "god" that makes them wrong, not the other way around, their being wrong in their way of viewing and understanding doesn't make "god" not exist. Don't you see that?

God expressed in the texts is a state of duality. It is both good and evil but what they are doing in the book is describing the path of each side by using archetypes, manifestation of ego as literal representatives kingdom of heaven, pits of hell, etc. The path of evil or tyranny/intent of bad, the price is paid with hell, judgement, guilt and negative feelings and reality because what we think manifests in reality by our choices, words, ideas, etc, it's a ripple effect and so it creates a hell for that individual, a struggle internal and may also project externally, a chaos in psyche.

The good path is described as a road to Heaven, paradise, etc.. Think of this path as the path to wisdom, self awareness, etc.

Light and dark out of "god" the subconsciousness/consciousness. I used to have a literal view of the Bible and religions too and spent years researching independently, finding no success in what I wanted or how I looked, I switched my view to myself and began to understand myself, which lead me to understand everything else, to appreciate what -is-, is the "perfection" in which you state.

Both sides are just representatives of a path of future with by a list of actions/ideas one may commit, some being certainly out dated, due to context now versus context then.

You're working backwards ultimately you see, you must get them to see their view is not through an understanding but instead merely believing. You are trying to get rid of "god" instead of get rid of ignorance, which is counter productive considering you are trying to work for the very "god" you are trying to get rid of by assigning it "impossible" and not "perfect" when you are literally in and of it.

Get rid of the ignorance, not what is(which you can't really so it's a moot attempt) It will only cause more confusion, to go backwards. You must understand yourself fully before guiding another who does not understand themself.

If I describe psychology to you today by using terms like subconscious and consciousness, you would believe me and understand me better, you wouldn't associate this with religion though but instead science, our terminology for the mind now is a lot more advanced than it was before. So do you see the connection? They were describing reality just to the best of what they had in terms of language and context/environment. Thus, it is not the text that is wrong but merely the not understanding of it being psychological or expression of man's psyche through /art/ just as we do today but may understand it because it is /our language/ now.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Note there are many types of gods, weak, strong, monkey god, elephant gods, the many gods of the Greeks and other cultures.For all the above gods, there is one master of all gods, i.e. GOD [with a Capital G], the only and 100% perfect God.

By "humility" I mean the theists will not compromise with God's qualities in any way, so the ultimate God-proper must be an uncompromising 100% perfect GOD in every way.

You contend that if God is not perfect in the absolute sense, then it "must" mean that there exist other gods more powerful...

Hmmm... How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This is very logical.If you have x, then x+1 is possible.This one-up claim very common in the children school grounds and other playgrounds.Thus you will have a 1-up god for every god that is claimed to exist.

To avoid the above never ending one-up to infinity, every theists will claim their God is absolutely perfect, so no theist can claim a 1-up God over others.

If you are well versed with the Philosophy of Theology, you would have been aware the ontological God of St. Anselm or Descartes, i.e. God is defined as;"a being than which no greater can exist".see the SEP-Link above

So, as an example, if the strongest man on Earth, whoever he be, is not "perfectly" the strongest man, if he just have even the slightest flaw, that must therefore mean that there are, of necessity, other men stronger than him?

You cannot compare a fallible human to an infallible God.Your example is moot.

Really? Are you actually that mentally inflexible that you won't allow one smidgen of error or potential defect?

Ever heard of the proverbial saying "No need to be perfect" ?

It is not me who is inflexible.I have explained the psychological states of theists is such that one has to end up with the ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect being no greater can exists.

The truth is that you don't provide any evidence or sound reasoning as to how you arrive at your conclusions. You just arbitrarily assert your positions. Furthermore, you use very crass language when you are challenged. This suggests that you are insecure in your thought process.

I have to bring in sufficient attention-getters to make the point rational and the point is whether my arguments are sound or not.Have you read the Quran and Hadith to note how the Islamic God [Allah] had condemned [in crude and crass] the God claimed by Christians, Jews and others?

The whole idea of a GOD [illusory and impossible] is a mess of contradictions and dilemmas.I have argued above, God is an impossibility to be real.The idea of God [illusory] is only useful for psychological reasons.I believe theists should suspend judgment for a moment and learn more about their own internal psychological state in regard to their belief in a God [illusory], note Know Thyself [Socrates].

Perfectly wrong.Know Thyself is a phrase from the temple of a God. (Apollon).Sokrates said he knew nothing. Not himself.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have not come across any logically sound counter arguments to my premises.I have intellectual integrity, if my premises are proven wrong convincingly I will accept it or change them.

Proof in philosophical argument is rare, because most of the issues it deals with are precisely NOT things like geometric proofs or symbolic logic proofs.

IOW they deal with things, just as many of the issues around you beliefs around theism, that are radically affected by such floppy things as semantics, POV, psychology, human physiology, language in general. Further you are assuming that your own introspection based conclusions - that you are willing to notice compelling counterarguments- are not fallible.

Here we are dealing with metaphysics questions, yet you are expecting counter proofs and that you have made a proof. That you have not. You have made an argument. Opinions differ about how good that argument is, but it is not a proof.

Note mathematical, scientific, legal proofs are different from philosophical sense of 'proofs'.Btw, according to Russell [which I agree] there is no certainty in philosophical questions nor 'proof'.

Thus for 'proof' is the philosophical sense, I meant reasonable and convincing arguments which in this case I have provided.

Basically my syllogism is very logical and sound.I have also provided arguments and evidences for the two premises.

My arguments are not based purely on my own 'blind' introspection. My arguments are based on years of research and reflection from a wide range of knowledge. If I were to list all the relevant books, articles, etc. i.e. a Bibliography, it would come to at least a 1000++.You will note in many of my threads and posts, I often support them with links. I don't see many in your posts, i.e. you are probably just guessing.

Any issue would have the human brain and its psychology as primary. Further what you do is present a very simplified version of human psychology and then universalize it. Then call it a proof.

Your own psychology is affecting both the contents of your argument and your certainty that you have proven something.

As mentioned I applied rigor within a very wide range of knowledge to arrive at my conclusions.If I were to list all the relevant books, articles, etc. i.e. a bibliography relevant to this OP, it would come to at least a 1000++.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

I have not come across any logically sound counter arguments to my premises.I have intellectual integrity, if my premises are proven wrong convincingly I will accept it or change them.

I think there have been.

Where? If there are I would not leave it open, unattended or uncountered.

Regardless, you believe that your argument is perfect, relative to the rules of logic etc., with that belief in mind how are you going to accept any counter-arguments as being valid? Do you not realise the conundrum there?

I have agreed with my counter arguments that are convincing before. Generally it is due to my ignorance and omission on some knowledge. Since I have attempted to cover whatever knowledge that I am aware of.Previously when I discussed Kant with others, I am often caught uninformed of Kant theories, so I make it a point to study Kant full time for 3 years so no one can pull a fast one on me as far as the philosophy of Kant is concerned.When I critiqued Islam, they said I have not read the Quran nor know Arabic, so I learned up basis Quranic Arab and spent almost 3 years full time studying, researching and analyzing the Quran.If you can show me what I am ignorant of, I will definitely study, read and research on what I am ignorant of.

Why should I prove a perfect God is an oxymoron.

Because, you said that your argument is similar to "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real".

Ok, an absolute perfect God is contrary to anything that is real. I have argued on that.

Note an absolute perfect God is a possibility in thoughts only but not in reality. Anyone can think of an absolute perfect God and believe in it for whatever reasons, wherein certain cases it results in terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME theists.

I think there may or may not be some kind of “higher power” which can be likened to what is described as “God”. If such a thing exists, whether that thing is perfect or not is I think a matter of perception.

Note there are loads of powerful elements within Nature and they all can be proven to be real on an empirical-rational basis.You can think 'may or may not' but such thoughts are pointless until you can provide proofs via an empirical-rational basis.

With so many different religions and views about God, what one religion's adherents perceive as a perfect God may not be perceived as perfect by others. I mean, Christians generally eschew the Islamic God, yet both perceive their God as perfect. It is I think very problematic to define a perfect God that is universally accepted.

Note I used the term 'absolute perfection' in relation to God.It is generic, logical and rational, the ultimate perfection claimed by all theists would be the absolute perfect God and nothing else less.No theist-in-general [except the perverted] would compromise and concede on the one-up concept for their God to another theist. After all it is just as easy to tick and claim one God is the greatest of all that no other can be greater.

My argument is 'God is an impossibility to be real' to the extent of 1. delivering real holy texts via prophets/messenger compelling believers to obey his words and commands.2. answering real prayers of believers.

Many would disagree with you regarding the prophets, and there are many people who've had things they've prayed for come to fruition. For you and me that doesn't confirm that God is real, but for them it sticks a “verified” stamp on the holy text. For some people, aspects of life unfold as the prophets said they would.

Note my OP is directed as those who claimed and will inevitable claim their God to be absolutely perfect.Which Christian and Muslim would disagree with Jesus and Muhammad as an agent of God to spread God words in their holy texts respectively?My point is to convince these theists, God is an impossibility to be real, thus no real prophets and the holy texts are man made, thus should be obeyed to commit evil and violence.

My argument is, there are two perspectives to perfect and absolute, i.e.1. relative perfection2. absolute perfection

I know, but I don't believe that is correct. If you research the term “perfection” you'll find that there cannot be degrees of perfection – that something cannot be more than perfect. Perfection is the absolute.

There is obvious a difference between what is claimed to be perfect within the empirical world, e.g. 100/100 in an objective tests and the perfection of God. Surely it is obvious no theists would accept empirical relative perfection as comparable to God's perfection.

I have already explain it is very common to see the term "perfection" in the relative sense, e.g. perfect scores in sports, perfect score in an objective tests, etc.Since relative perfection is attributable to fallible humans, we have to differentiate and qualify God perfection as absolute, i.e. unconditional.This is the reason why I qualify God's as absolute perfection.

If you do some research you'll see that this is not correct. You are just emphasising. Perfection is relative to criteria, such as being flawless. God's purported perfection is described by different criteria than we use to describe human things, but we are still describing perfection.

You are in denial of the difference as I had mentioned above.I have argued if God absolute perfection is the same as human's relative/conditional perfection, then one will downgrade one's God's perfection to being conditional thus expose to be inferior to another god relatively.

It is not an established fact but a hypothesis at this stage.

So why are you claiming that it supports your argument, which you claim is a logically sound? Surely a logically sound argument is both supported factually, and axiomatic.

Here is a excerpt for Quora which I think is correct: "For something to be "proven" as true using logic, it has to be derived from premises that are universally accepted, which we call "axioms" - and universal acceptability is elusive."

Do you think that your argument fulfills that criteria, and if so why?

Above 'universally accepted' is a bad argument, note the rejection of the once universally accepted 'flat earth' theory.In addition whatever universal is intersubjective.I have argued my premises are logical and rational within critical thinking extending to psychological knowledge of one self and others.

If you have read all the religious texts and behavior of believers it is very obvious their theistic and non-theistic activities are reducible to the inherent existential crisis which is very subliminal and not brought to the conscious level.I have discussed this point before, it is very noticeable the main purpose of Buddhism [Buddha Story re death], Hinduism [reincarnation], Abrahamic religions [eternal life in heaven] and primitive religions are reducible to the existential crisis.

This is reducible to interpretation, not fact.

First it is a very tenable hypothesis that can be easily inferred from the evidences mentioned which at least represent one of the main purpose of all religions. This is undeniable. Can you prove I am wrong?To me, based on all the extensive research I have done, the existential crisis is main purpose. Note this is not a wild imagination, the Buddhists and many non-theistic approach agree with me. It is a matter of time others will come to accept this thesis.

Your limitation is simply to ignore the role of the brain in contributing primarily to theism and thus ignore its associated evil and violent acts by SOME evil prone believers.

A person can be naturally intelligent and able to figure things out, which you seem to be. But that can easily turn into arrogance and over-belief in their abilities. No matter how naturally intelligent a person is, without formal training in a field there are going to be errors and mistakes. I don't discuss the role of the brain in contributing to theism, because I don't know enough about the field. I know a little, the basics, but to make the claims that you do, one would expect you to hold at least one degree in psychology, I don't even think the academia make the kind of claims you do, you're really over-shooting IMV.

As far as the brain is concerned, I have been updating my database on the relation between brain and spirituality for many years.So far whatever new knowledge that I have arisen in the field, they are reconcilable to my original thesis.I believe when the Human Connectome Project advances, it will make greater confirmation of my thesis, i.e. it all all in the brain and there is no real God.

Isn't this very obvious.It is so evident, the Jihadists [human brains] have been quoting and relying on their holy texts to justify their evil and violent acts. You cannot be that ignorant on such facts??

Therefore it is very logical to look seriously into the brain [human psychology] as a significant variable in the resultant theistic-based evil & violent act.

Granted, but you have to know what you're doing. Would you see a doctor who told you that he didn't go to medical school, but he's read a lot about medicine?

This is not a medical or engineering problem.It is a philosophical problem and we are in philosophical forum.I have stated the 'currency' here is 'sound arguments' with critical thinking.So far I have done that. Show me where I am wrong?

If we take away the God & it texts variables, then we have,Human brains = evil & violent plus good acts

i.e. ZERO theistic-based evil & Violence acts.

A teenager (or younger) could surmise that Prismatic. You think taking the idea of God away from people would be a good idea? What guarantee do you have that would solve anything? Some people don't do evil because they believe in God, its a complex variable with many different layers. You don't seem to appreciate the subtleties.

If teenager can why not you?

I have asked why are the cons of theism that secular elements cannot provide?

Note I have researched on the root cause of theism. I believe resolving the root cause solve the problem of theistic-based evil and violent acts. The root cause of theism is psychological which is inherent and unavoidable. As such it can only be resolved on a massive scale by replacing theism with fool proofs approaches. I understand such replacements will take time because we do not effective replacements and alternatives at present. This will take time but first me must understand the problem before we can start to deal with the problem on a massive scale.

Note at the mirco scale there are already thousands of theists turning to non-theism, so it is possible for humanity to wean off theism with fool proof replacements.

Yes some theists do not do evil because of the suppressing from God's words but the numbers are not significant.Without theism we will get rid of all theistic-based evils and violence which at the extreme could exterminate the humans species if Islamist get access to cheap WMDs.

Without God, some ex-theists by their evil nature will have a strong tendency to commit evil but the numbers are small. In any case, humanity will replace foolproofs approaches to replace theism to ensure there are not strays ex-theists.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Artimas wrote:I understand you completely and would have been on your side before I came to an understanding of I and self along with environment.

You can study it your whole life and still not understand it, do you study to answer or refute or did you try to learn to understand?

The point is I have done more study on the Quran and other holy texts than you. Thus I claim I understand more than you do in this particular case.

You are missing the point of what "God" truly is while focusing on what "God" shouldn't or 'can't be' based off of a misinterpretation of texts and wanting/needing to prove that misinterpretation wrong along with a misunderstanding of context/metaphor and how to correlate meaning to imagery/symbolism.

Perfect is an understanding, it's a balance to be reached, when you understand the full implications of this design we are in and also can understand self and it's interaction with it, you too will deem it "perfect" by design, it's brilliantly evolved. Reality and the mind. "God" is very observable, the best form to observe of it are children, animals and life without consciousness(awareness of their own instincts)

But I am not saying what God should be, I am saying what God is, when it boils down to it and you finally understand how things work based off of chaos and order, you will find it a system based off of grand order with great fortitude.

Re "What God Is" since you have written quite a lot in it, I would suggest you start a new thread to present your detail argument.

Here I am arguing God is an impossibility to be real.The idea of God is moot and thus a non-starter.If would be more effective re this OP for you to counter my very specific argument.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be realP2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfectC.. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

To counter my argument is very easy, i.e. just prove either P1 and/or P2 is wrong.Note I have provided and countered all arguments against my P1 and P2 in the various posts within this thread.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Where? If there are I would not leave it open, unattended or uncountered.

I don't have the time reference the specific arguments, but I think there were some or even many valid counter-arguments. You countered, but I don't think you we're correct.

Ok, an absolute perfect God is contrary to anything that is real. I have argued on that.

What do you mean by “contrary to anything that is real”? God is not purported to be a physical being, rather a “spirit”. How can you be absolutely certain that “spiritual” things don't exist? You don't have to believe that such things exist, neither do I really, but you can't prove with logic that they don't. The most you can say is that there is no empirical evidence for that purported aspect of reality, which in itself doesn't prove anything. If non-empirical things exist, empirical methods of measurement aren't going to be of any use in detecting them. You can shout from the highest rooftop, present any type of argument you want, but you can't prove anything axiomatically, which is essentially what your argument attempts to do.

Note there are loads of powerful elements within Nature and they all can be proven to be real on an empirical-rational basis.You can think 'may or may not' but such thoughts are pointless until you can provide proofs via an empirical-rational basis.

"Pointless" in the sense you're applying it is purely a matter of perspective. You can't arbitrarily decide such things for others, that is beyond your purview.

There is obvious a difference between what is claimed to be perfect within the empirical world, e.g. 100/100 in an objective tests and the perfection of God. Surely it is obvious no theists would accept empirical relative perfection as comparable to God's perfection.

Perfection has one meaning. No matter how you apply it means the same thing. If you say "God is perfect" there is no difference in saying that God is "absolutely perfect", unless you want to emphasise.

You are in denial of the difference as I had mentioned above.I have argued if God absolute perfection is the same as human's relative/conditional perfection, then one will downgrade one's God's perfection to being conditional thus expose to be inferior to another god relatively.

No I'm not, I'm using the correct meaning of the word. You can research this if you like, check the major dictionaries.

Above 'universally accepted' is a bad argument, note the rejection of the once universally accepted 'flat earth' theory.In addition whatever universal is intersubjective.I have argued my premises are logical and rational within critical thinking extending to psychological knowledge of one self and others.

Within the context of what the guy is actually saying, I think its a very good point. I think that axioms are the closest we can get to logical proofs. If your argument is sound, then it should be self-evidently correct. The fact that you've encountered so many disagreements should tell you something.

Last edited by Fanman on Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Artimas wrote:I understand you completely and would have been on your side before I came to an understanding of I and self along with environment.

You can study it your whole life and still not understand it, do you study to answer or refute or did you try to learn to understand?

The point is I have done more study on the Quran and other holy texts than you. Thus I claim I understand more than you do in this particular case.

You are missing the point of what "God" truly is while focusing on what "God" shouldn't or 'can't be' based off of a misinterpretation of texts and wanting/needing to prove that misinterpretation wrong along with a misunderstanding of context/metaphor and how to correlate meaning to imagery/symbolism.

Perfect is an understanding, it's a balance to be reached, when you understand the full implications of this design we are in and also can understand self and it's interaction with it, you too will deem it "perfect" by design, it's brilliantly evolved. Reality and the mind. "God" is very observable, the best form to observe of it are children, animals and life without consciousness(awareness of their own instincts)

But I am not saying what God should be, I am saying what God is, when it boils down to it and you finally understand how things work based off of chaos and order, you will find it a system based off of grand order with great fortitude.

Re "What God Is" since you have written quite a lot in it, I would suggest you start a new thread to present your detail argument.

Here I am arguing God is an impossibility to be real.The idea of God is moot and thus a non-starter.If would be more effective re this OP for you to counter my very specific argument.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be realP2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfectC.. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

To counter my argument is very easy, i.e. just prove either P1 and/or P2 is wrong.Note I have provided and countered all arguments against my P1 and P2 in the various posts within this thread.

I have countered it already of which you apparently do not understand. You can study the book all you want, just like I have but until you understand yourself you will not understand it, in the method of which it is meant to be understood, so you're arguing for and against something you do not fully understand, unless you understand yourself. I am trying to help guide you to yourself but only you may make the decision ultimately of which may grant you vision of and for God.

A hammer will not give you an understanding of how to use such if one thinks it's meant to be used as a screwdriver. It is simple yet can become complex and misleading, especially if everyone is telling you to use it as a screwdriver. It will not be until /you/ use the hammer and through trial and error of its use that you may discover and understand that it is not meant to be used as a screwdriver all along but as a hammer.

This is an analogy for the texts and "god".

"God" is perfect, it is what is and what you are. Self and the system of which self interacts with. The very creative power one realizes that is within self is the very god one may worship along with the architecture of what is, without ever realizing such.

"god" isn't a one thing, it is in and of everything. So if you believe it is not perfect then you will only see imperfection in self and in reality. You must understand self before you understand "god" otherwise you argue and dabble in things you do not understand by merely knowing and the key is to understand what one may know.

There's my counter to both P1 and P2.

I have been studying religions, mythology, self and all of this for at the very least, 8 years. I'm pretty confident in what I understand So far.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Where? If there are I would not leave it open, unattended or uncountered.

I don't have the time reference the specific arguments, but I think there were some or even many valid counter-arguments. You countered, but I don't think you we're correct.

You should have noted I have put in a lot of time and effort to present my thesis.As I had stated, I maintain a high standard of intellectual integrity, thus there is no way I will leave any 'hole' [countered argument] unattended.

Ok, an absolute perfect God is contrary to anything that is real. I have argued on that.

What do you mean by “contrary to anything that is real”? God is not purported to be a physical being, rather a “spirit”. How can you be absolutely certain that “spiritual” things don't exist? You don't have to believe that such things exist, neither do I really, but you can't prove with logic that they don't. The most you can say is that there is no empirical evidence for that purported aspect of reality, which in itself doesn't prove anything. If non-empirical things exist, empirical methods of measurement aren't going to be of any use in detecting them. You can shout from the highest rooftop, present any type of argument you want, but you can't prove anything axiomatically, which is essentially what your argument attempts to do.

What is real is empirical, rational and anchored philosophically.

If it is empirical alone, then one will have to be like Dawkins who had no choice but by empirical default has to be an agnostic [his 1/7th provision God may exists]. If you claim God is empirical, then I will accept the possibility an empirical God may exists. As with Dawkins it is 99.999% unlikely theists to produce evidence for an empirical God with the qualities they had assigned to their God.The final test and conclusion is to bring the empirical evidence to justify an empirical God exists.

However the consideration for the existence God should not be confined to the empirical but we have to take into account the rational perspective i.e. logically, sound, critically reviewed, etc.Logically and rationally, I have argued the empirical God [that answers prayers, deliver holy text] must be absolutely perfect.But absolute perfection is an impossibility within the empirical perspective.

Example, one can produce a perfect empirical circle, but this is only a relatively perfect empirical circle. There is the near absolute perfect circle which is geometrical and mathematically perfect, i.e. a rational ideal which cannot be empirical.

In this case, the absolute rational perfect/ideal circle is contrary [impossibly] to a possible perfect empirical circle.

Similarly, an absolute perfect God is impossible to be real.

Note there are loads of powerful elements within Nature and they all can be proven to be real on an empirical-rational basis.You can think 'may or may not' but such thoughts are pointless until you can provide proofs via an empirical-rational basis.

"Pointless" in the sense you're applying it is purely a matter of perspective. You can't arbitrarily decide such things, that is beyond your purview.

This is very basic.You can think imagine anything, but,if you claim any empirical thing exists, you have to provide empirical evidence to justify its existence.

There is obvious a difference between what is claimed to be perfect within the empirical world, e.g. 100/100 in an objective tests and the perfection of God. Surely it is obvious no theists would accept empirical relative perfection as comparable to God's perfection.

Perfection has one meaning. No matter how you apply it means the same thing. If you say "God is perfect" there is no difference in saying that God is "absolutely perfect", unless you want to emphasise.

In a way, I want to emphasize the critical difference.Note my explanation above on the difference between,

No matter how, the empirical perfect circle drawn and measured by humans will never be 100% perfect to the theoretical perfect circle represented by its geometric measurements.

You are in denial of the difference as I had mentioned above.I have argued if God absolute perfection is the same as human's relative/conditional perfection, then one will downgrade one's God's perfection to being conditional thus expose to be inferior to another god relatively.

No I'm not, I'm using the correct meaning of the word. You can research this if you like, check the major dictionaries.

The meaning of absolute perfection and relative perfection is very obvious.Re God, Absolute perfection = totally unconditional while relative perfect is relative to subjects [humans].Btw, as usual, I will not leave any stone unturned, I have researched extensively on the term 'perfection' since it was brought up.

Above 'universally accepted' is a bad argument, note the rejection of the once universally accepted 'flat earth' theory.In addition whatever universal is intersubjective.I have argued my premises are logical and rational within critical thinking extending to psychological knowledge of one self and others.

Within the context of what the guy is actually saying, I think its a very good point. I think that axioms are the closest we can get to logical proofs. If your argument is sound, then it should be self-evidently correct. The fact that you've encountered so many disagreements should tell you something.

I am not surprised by the disagreements but you cannot simply conclude from that, fallacy of ad populum. Throughout history, for anything that is novelty [true or false], it is very natural to encounter resistance and disagreements. This is a safety valve to facilitate survival.

My strong point is I have provided very sound and rational arguments.

I have also provided alternative arguments why theists are so clingy to an illusory based on faith, i.e. it is because of a desperate psychology re an inherent existential crisis.

Perhaps in the past, the pros of theism overweigh it cons, but towards the future of our evolving humanity, there is a trend the cons of theism are outweighing the pros of theism.

Note the Jihadists could like exterminate the human species if they get access to cheap WMDs in the win-win path to heaven regardless if Earth is destroyed or nuked.

Note the recent hoo..hah.If God is convinced to be an impossibility, there would be no grounds for the Sultan of Brunei to enact God-imposed barbaric laws to stone adulterers and homosexual to death.

Your leaving room for the possibility of the existence of a real God is in a way complicit to the all the evil and violence committed by SOME [100 millions] evil prone theists in the name of their God to gain merit for an eternal life.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be realP2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfectC.. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

To counter my argument is very easy, i.e. just prove either P1 and/or P2 is wrong.Note I have provided and countered all arguments against my P1 and P2 in the various posts within this thread.

I have countered it already of which you apparently do not understand. You can study the book all you want, just like I have but until you understand yourself you will not understand it, in the method of which it is meant to be understood, so you're arguing for and against something you do not fully understand, unless you understand yourself. I am trying to help guide you to yourself but only you may make the decision ultimately of which may grant you vision of and for God.

A hammer will not give you an understanding of how to use such if one thinks it's meant to be used as a screwdriver. It is simple yet can become complex and misleading, especially if everyone is telling you to use it as a screwdriver. It will not be until /you/ use the hammer and through trial and error of its use that you may discover and understand that it is not meant to be used as a screwdriver all along but as a hammer.

This is an analogy for the texts and "god".

"God" is perfect, it is what is and what you are. Self and the system of which self interacts with. The very creative power one realizes that is within self is the very god one may worship along with the architecture of what is, without ever realizing such.

"god" isn't a one thing, it is in and of everything. So if you believe it is not perfect then you will only see imperfection in self and in reality. You must understand self before you understand "god" otherwise you argue and dabble in things you do not understand by merely knowing and the key is to understand what one may know.

There's my counter to both P1 and P2.

You are not on target re my P1 and P2.

It is not my [a non-theist] idea of God that I am arguing for.The idea of God I am referring to is inferred and framed from the Abrahamic, Hinduism [certain] and some others' perspectives re their specific idea and concept of perfection, i.e. absolute perfection and relative perfection. I believe I have understood their idea of what their God is.From my understanding of what their God is, I am arguing their God is an impossibility as real.

You on the other hand is presenting your own idea of God. This is why I suggest you open a thread to justify the existence of God as you view it and in addition you can show why the Abrahamic God is wrongly idealized.

In some ways, I [once a long time pantheist] understand your idea of God [consciousness, subconscious, etc.] which I believe is benign and agreed by an insignificant number of theists e.g. mystics, spiritualists, pantheist, panentheist, etc. This thread is not applicable your type of theism.

This thread is more to the malignant [potentially] absolute perfect God as claimed by the Abrahamic, Hinduism, some others which comprised more than 50% of the world populations and [especially Islam] are contributing to terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.

I have been studying religions, mythology, self and all of this for at the very least, 8 years. I'm pretty confident in what I understand So far.

No intent to be one-up for ego sake, factually I have studied the above for more than 40 years intensively and extensively plus much more.

You can confirm with Fanman, both of us were already debating religion and theism intensively and deeply almost 10 years ago in another forum.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

You should have noted I have put in a lot of time and effort to present my thesis.As I had stated, I maintain a high standard of intellectual integrity, thus there is no way I will leave any 'hole' [countered argument] unattended.

The fact that you countered, doesn't mean that you did so successfully.

What is real is empirical, rational and anchored philosophically.

When did you become the arbiter of reality?

I am not surprised by the disagreements but you cannot simply conclude from that, fallacy of ad populum. Throughout history, for anything that is novelty [true or false], it is very natural to encounter resistance and disagreements. This is a safety valve to facilitate survival.

It really isn't that complex, people disagree with you because they think you're wrong, why would it be anything deeper than that? I am not claiming that you're wrong because a lot of people disagree with you. My point is that if your argument is, as you claim, perfect, how would anyone be able to disagree.

You should have noted I have put in a lot of time and effort to present my thesis.As I had stated, I maintain a high standard of intellectual integrity, thus there is no way I will leave any 'hole' [countered argument] unattended.

The fact that you countered, doesn't mean that you did so successfully.

What is real is empirical, rational and anchored philosophically.

When did you become the arbiter of reality?

I am not surprised by the disagreements but you cannot simply conclude from that, fallacy of ad populum. Throughout history, for anything that is novelty [true or false], it is very natural to encounter resistance and disagreements. This is a safety valve to facilitate survival.

It really isn't that complex, people disagree with you because they think you're wrong, why would it be anything deeper than that? I am not claiming that you're wrong because a lot of people disagree with you. My point is that if your argument is, as you claim, perfect, how would anyone be able to disagree.

That's the thing, I don't believe. I only know. I stay away from belief unless it may lead down a path and isn't a wall. The only wall one should come to is an understanding and higher perception, which shows pathways to many different things artistically, so a wall of which has a door to many possibilities. There is no "I have proven god as an impossibility" because then we would not be here at all. Reality is what you perceive it to be and if one wishes to stay trapped in impossiblilities instead of a humble approach to knowing and then understanding that knowing, with a balance between logic and reason. Science/intellect, body/ego/perception and spirit/subconsciousness and it's primordial imagery then one has chosen to live in death, a state of unchanging ego/identity and it's association with many ideas.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be realP2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfectC.. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

To counter my argument is very easy, i.e. just prove either P1 and/or P2 is wrong.Note I have provided and countered all arguments against my P1 and P2 in the various posts within this thread.

I have countered it already of which you apparently do not understand. You can study the book all you want, just like I have but until you understand yourself you will not understand it, in the method of which it is meant to be understood, so you're arguing for and against something you do not fully understand, unless you understand yourself. I am trying to help guide you to yourself but only you may make the decision ultimately of which may grant you vision of and for God.

A hammer will not give you an understanding of how to use such if one thinks it's meant to be used as a screwdriver. It is simple yet can become complex and misleading, especially if everyone is telling you to use it as a screwdriver. It will not be until /you/ use the hammer and through trial and error of its use that you may discover and understand that it is not meant to be used as a screwdriver all along but as a hammer.

This is an analogy for the texts and "god".

"God" is perfect, it is what is and what you are. Self and the system of which self interacts with. The very creative power one realizes that is within self is the very god one may worship along with the architecture of what is, without ever realizing such.

"god" isn't a one thing, it is in and of everything. So if you believe it is not perfect then you will only see imperfection in self and in reality. You must understand self before you understand "god" otherwise you argue and dabble in things you do not understand by merely knowing and the key is to understand what one may know.

There's my counter to both P1 and P2.

You are not on target re my P1 and P2.

It is not my [a non-theist] idea of God that I am arguing for.The idea of God I am referring to is inferred and framed from the Abrahamic, Hinduism [certain] and some others' perspectives re their specific idea and concept of perfection, i.e. absolute perfection and relative perfection. I believe I have understood their idea of what their God is.From my understanding of what their God is, I am arguing their God is an impossibility as real.

You on the other hand is presenting your own idea of God. This is why I suggest you open a thread to justify the existence of God as you view it and in addition you can show why the Abrahamic God is wrongly idealized.

In some ways, I [once a long time pantheist] understand your idea of God [consciousness, subconscious, etc.] which I believe is benign and agreed by an insignificant number of theists e.g. mystics, spiritualists, pantheist, panentheist, etc. This thread is not applicable your type of theism.

This thread is more to the malignant [potentially] absolute perfect God as claimed by the Abrahamic, Hinduism, some others which comprised more than 50% of the world populations and [especially Islam] are contributing to terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.

I have been studying religions, mythology, self and all of this for at the very least, 8 years. I'm pretty confident in what I understand So far.

No intent to be one-up for ego sake, factually I have studied the above for more than 40 years intensively and extensively plus much more.

You can confirm with Fanman, both of us were already debating religion and theism intensively and deeply almost 10 years ago in another forum.

So you dismiss my argument as me trying to claim "what God is" and state it should be put in another thread, why? It is the disproval of your argument, which you posted in the religion/spirituality section of the forums.

I only deal with facts and what I know. It may be hard to accept the fact that I understand my self and my interaction with reality in a more full image than you. This is apparent as we go through the argument/discussion.

You can't dismiss my counter argument and try to paint it as a whole separate subject when it is what is. Just because you do not understand my method of explanation and many analogies to represent how your argument is based off of a misinterpretation of the very god in which you're trying to argue for or become yourself. I am telling you the /how/ to get past the wall in which you're trying to prove as truth when in reality, it's a wall without doors. We are possible and we have possibilities, this understanding is the very god and perfection you try to disprove.

That's you're issue, you're not balanced between science and spirituality/self. So you think only for science(a literal, concrete evidence only style of thought, not able to correlate metaphorical context to a full extent), which is not reasonable.

Balance of perception and self, is reasonable.

In simple terms, you're attempting at evading and hiding from my counter argument out of an embedded fear/ego that you may be wrong and have wasted your time with your attempt at disproving what is, however you do not see it was never a waste of time for it lead you to this point now.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

You should have noted I have put in a lot of time and effort to present my thesis.As I had stated, I maintain a high standard of intellectual integrity, thus there is no way I will leave any 'hole' [countered argument] unattended.

The fact that you countered, doesn't mean that you did so successfully.

Since I have put in the reasonable critical analysis and soundness, I am confident I am successful, until someone can show me 'holes' in my argument.So far no one has been able to show my argument is not sound.

What is real is empirical, rational and anchored philosophically.

When did you become the arbiter of reality?

Can you argue with the above otherwise as regard what is real?

Note it is very obvious justified empirical evidence represent 90% of what is supposed to be real. The 10% reservation is provision for empirical illusions. Do you dispute this?

The 10% uncertainty within the empirical perspective is covered by rationality and critical thinking which is anchored within philosophy-proper.

Note I often produced the quote from Russell where he claimed,"Perhaps there is no table (objective) at all"This doubt can only be supported by rational and critically anchored philosophically.

I am not surprised by the disagreements but you cannot simply conclude from that, fallacy of ad populum. Throughout history, for anything that is novelty [true or false], it is very natural to encounter resistance and disagreements. This is a safety valve to facilitate survival.

It really isn't that complex, people disagree with you because they think you're wrong, why would it be anything deeper than that? I am not claiming that you're wrong because a lot of people disagree with you. My point is that if your argument is, as you claim, perfect, how would anyone be able to disagree.

I did not claim my argument to be absolutely perfect as with theists who claimed their God is absolutely [unconditionally] perfect.

My argument is relatively perfect and conditional to the respective perspective and Framework.First my syllogism is logically perfect in accordance to the rules of logic.In addition, I have provided sound arguments for my P1 and P2.

Thus if you disagree, then prove my P1 and/or P2 is wrong and false.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Artimas wrote:So you dismiss my argument as me trying to claim "what God is" and state it should be put in another thread, why? It is the disproval of your argument, which you posted in the religion/spirituality section of the forums.

I only deal with facts and what I know. It may be hard to accept the fact that I understand my self and my interaction with reality in a more full image than you. This is apparent as we go through the argument/discussion.

You can't dismiss my counter argument and try to paint it as a whole separate subject when it is what is. Just because you do not understand my method of explanation and many analogies to represent how your argument is based off of a misinterpretation of the very god in which you're trying to argue for or become yourself. I am telling you the /how/ to get past the wall in which you're trying to prove as truth when in reality, it's a wall without doors. We are possible and we have possibilities, this understanding is the very god and perfection you try to disprove.

That's you're issue, you're not balanced between science and spirituality/self. So you think only for science(a literal, concrete evidence only style of thought, not able to correlate metaphorical context to a full extent), which is not reasonable.

Balance of perception and self, is reasonable.

In simple terms, you're attempting at evading and hiding from my counter argument out of an embedded fear/ego that you may be wrong and have wasted your time with your attempt at disproving what is, however you do not see it was never a waste of time for it lead you to this point now.

I am giving you a very frank opinion.

If you want to disprove my argument, you have to start with the argument,i.e.

PI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be realP2. God imperatively must be absolutely perfectC.. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real

You can proceed by specifically arguing against myPI. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be realDo you dispute this?Do you think absolute perfection is a possibility within reality?Explain why the above statement is false?

and P2. God IMPERATIVELY must be absolutely perfectDo you dispute this?Explain with your counter argument why the above is false.Note many has countered with theirs and many gods are not claimed to be absolutely perfect, i have countered that effectively.

It is so simple in theory,if you can prove any one or both are false, then I can close shop with the OP.

What you have presented do not address my P1 and P2 directly.

Your point is you claim God exists.Then you have to present your proposal, God exists as what?There were claims God exists as that bearded man in the sky, this is obviously not convincing given the current knowledge we have.Some claim God exists as spirit, energy, being, unknown substance, Absolute etc.There are those who claim God is simply 'existence' or "is."

Seemingly you believe God exists as consciousness? subconsciousness? or ??Whatever you believe God exists as .., say X.then you have to justify what is X.This is why I suggest you prove your case in a separate thread.

If you can prove your claim is true and real, thus possible, then yes it will counter my argument from the absolute perfection perspective.

But I am aware whatever claim you made of God, it is not a possibility to be real, and it will end up with the usual long drawn 'till the cows come home' scenario. This is why I do not want your approach to mess up with my thread which is specifically based on the absolute perfection perspective and not your intended perspective.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Note it is very obvious justified empirical evidence represent 90% of what is supposed to be real. The 10% reservation is provision for empirical illusions. Do you dispute this?

The 10% uncertainty within the empirical perspective is covered by rationality and critical thinking which is anchored within philosophy-proper.

Note I often produced the quote from Russell where he claimed,"Perhaps there is no table (objective) at all" This doubt can only be supported by rational and critically anchored philosophically.

Where reality is concerned I tend not to think in such binary or absolute terms as you seem to do. I think that empirical evidence is very important and tells us a great deal about the nature of reality. But I don't rule out the possibility that things can exist beyond the scope of what empirical methods of examination are able to find. For me, reality is both empirical and experiential, I'm not trying to prove anything. I am just a person in a Universe that is absolutely massive. How can I possibly hope to be making absolute claims about what is universally real and what is not?

I did not claim my argument to be absolutely perfect as with theists who claimed their God is absolutely [unconditionally] perfect.

My argument is relatively perfect and conditional to the respective perspective and Framework.First my syllogism is logically perfect in accordance to the rules of logic.In addition, I have provided sound arguments for my P1 and P2.

Thus if you disagree, then prove my P1 and/or P2 is wrong and false.

This is not right from my perspective. How can I prove that your argument is wrong if you believe that it is perfect? Do you not see the problem?

Note it is very obvious justified empirical evidence represent 90% of what is supposed to be real. The 10% reservation is provision for empirical illusions. Do you dispute this?

The 10% uncertainty within the empirical perspective is covered by rationality and critical thinking which is anchored within philosophy-proper.

Note I often produced the quote from Russell where he claimed,"Perhaps there is no table (objective) at all" This doubt can only be supported by rational and critically anchored philosophically.

Where reality is concerned I tend not to think in such binary or absolute terms as you seem to do. I think that empirical evidence is very important and tells us a great deal about the nature of reality. But I don't rule out the possibility that things can exist beyond the scope of what empirical methods of examination are able to find.

I can agree it is possible there at things beyond our what is currently justified to be empirical [science being the most reliable]. But the main point is what is possible beyond the empirical must be empirically possible.For example I can believe it is possible for human-like aliens* living in a planet3 billion light years away. Note all the bolded elements in the statement are empirically possible to be verified empirically if empirical evidence can be produced for verification.(* or other living things, dinosaurs, monkeys, elephants, whales, etc.)

It is not possible for a square-circle [non empirical] to exist here on Earth or anywhere light years from Earth.It is the same for the absolutely perfect God [i.e. irrational, illusory, non-empirical], i.e. it is impossible to exist as real anywhere, Earth or elsewhere.

For me, reality is both empirical and experiential, I'm not trying to prove anything. I am just a person in a Universe that is absolutely massive. How can I possibly hope to be making absolute claims about what is universally real and what is not?

What is empirical is fundamentally experiential.There is no way one can experience an square-circle.According to Kant, one can think [thoughts only] but one cannot imagine [reserve for empirical and intuitional only ] a square-circle or an absolutely perfect God.

I did not claim my argument to be absolutely perfect as with theists who claimed their God is absolutely [unconditionally] perfect.

My argument is relatively perfect and conditional to the respective perspective and Framework.First my syllogism is logically perfect in accordance to the rules of logic.In addition, I have provided sound arguments for my P1 and P2.

Thus if you disagree, then prove my P1 and/or P2 is wrong and false.

This is not right from my perspective. How can I prove that your argument is wrong if you believe that it is perfect? Do you not see the problem?

I don't have to claim my argument is perfect.Note my argument stand by itself as logically solid and sound.

In the past, the majority claim with arrogance their argument for a flat earth theory was perfect. Does that meant no one could argued against it?The truth will always prevails and the flat earth theory [regardless how perfect it was claimed to be] was subsequently proven wrong with evidence and arguments.

It is very easy, you can prove my argument is wrong by exposing holes in my P1 or P2.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

I can agree it is possible there at things beyond our what is currently justified to be empirical [science being the most reliable]. But the main point is what is possible beyond the empirical must be empirically possible.For example I can believe it is possible for human-like aliens* living in a planet 3 billion light years away. Note all the bolded elements in the statement are empirically possible to be verified empirically if empirical evidence can be produced for verification.(* or other living things, dinosaurs, monkeys, elephants, whales, etc.)

It is not possible for a square-circle [non empirical] to exist here on Earth or anywhere light years from Earth.It is the same for the absolutely perfect God [i.e. irrational, illusory, non-empirical], i.e. it is impossible to exist as real anywhere, Earth or elsewhere.

From my perspective this both too binary, and absolute. How can something be both beyond empirical and empirical, isn't that a contradiction of terms? I do not put reality into a little box, and then define the criteria of what that box can and cannot contain, because it is impossible for any human being to know absolutely what is and is not possible. We have accurate frameworks and referential systems, but these do not attempt to tell us what is ultimately possible and impossible, just what is. We infer what can and cannot be using those frameworks, but they are certainly not comprehensive of all reality, our knowledge is not complete, which means that yours isn't either.

I don't have to claim my argument is perfect.Note my argument stand by itself as logically solid and sound.

You have claimed that your argument is perfect, which it isn't in my view, but as has been stated perfection is subjective. So if you believe that, then what can anyone do? I don't really understand how you can attempt to create a sound objective argument on the basis of a subjective premise.

In the past, the majority claim with arrogance their argument for a flat earth theory was perfect. Does that meant no one could argued against it?

Context, application and relevancy, Prismatic. The flat earth theory was due to a lack of empirical evidence. Your argument is purely logic based. Your logic isn't universally correct, it is subject to error, just like everyone else. If anything, the flat earth theory should demonstrate to you how far purely logic based conclusions can err.

The truth will always prevails and the flat earth theory [regardless how perfect it was claimed to be] was subsequently proven wrong with evidence and arguments.

Your argument is based upon the premise that absolute perfection cannot exist, I don't believe that is a sound premise. It makes it seem as though you think you know completely what is possible and what is not, but as I said, human methods of understanding reality are not comprehensive.

It is very easy, you can prove my argument is wrong by exposing holes in my P1 or P2.

Either you don't understand or you are pretending not to understand. If your argument is perfect, it cannot be countered, perfection is the absolute. So what you're claiming whether you know it or not, is that your argument is the absolute best that logic can achieve. You cannot both claim that your argument is perfect, and then accept that may can contain holes, again that is self-contradictory. Its like you're asking to be proven wrong, whilst firmly believing that you cannot be - the whole gist of your dialogue regarding your argument conveys that. You're setting up everyone to fail.

I can agree it is possible there at things beyond our what is currently justified to be empirical [science being the most reliable]. But the main point is what is possible beyond the empirical must be empirically possible.For example I can believe it is possible for human-like aliens* living in a planet 3 billion light years away. Note all the bolded elements in the statement are empirically possible to be verified empirically if empirical evidence can be produced for verification.(* or other living things, dinosaurs, monkeys, elephants, whales, etc.)

It is not possible for a square-circle [non empirical] to exist here on Earth or anywhere light years from Earth.It is the same for the absolutely perfect God [i.e. irrational, illusory, non-empirical], i.e. it is impossible to exist as real anywhere, Earth or elsewhere.

From my perspective this both too binary, and absolute. How can something be both beyond empirical and empirical, isn't that a contradiction of terms?

I do not put reality into a little box, and then define the criteria of what that box can and cannot contain, because it is impossible for any human being to know absolutely what is and is not possible.

We have accurate frameworks and referential systems, but these do not attempt to tell us what is ultimately possible and impossible, just what is. We infer what can and cannot be using those frameworks, but they are certainly not comprehensive of all reality, our knowledge is not complete, which means that yours isn't either.

I did not state a thing can both beyond empirical and existing empirically in the present at the same time.I meant there are justified and proven empirical things.Anything that is beyond proven empirical justifications at present can only be speculated to exists but it has to be empirically possible.I can accept God is a that bearded man in the sky, because the bolded are empirically-based, what is left for those who claim such to bring the empirical evidence for verification.

I would not reject the claim there is a tea pot flying around a planet 100 light years away, because this is based on a speculated statement which is empirically possible but not likely. Point is I cannot reject such a claim. This may be proven empirically when humans can reach that planet 100 light years away.

If you claim for anything empirically, then it is possible. What is left to be done is await the evidence to verify the empirical possibility. So it is possible for anyone to agree on what is empirically possible as long as the thing is empirically based.

Note there are empirical framework and systems, e.g. Science, legal, etc. which must be based on empirical evidence and justifications.We have framework and systems for thoughts, empirically-mixed and pure thoughts.Note Kant's Critique of Pure Reason which generates illusory such as a soul, Whole-Universe and God. A major part of my argument is banking on Kant's theories.

We cannot claim a pure-rational-thought_out thing is possible because firstly it is not empirical-based, thus cannot be tested empirically to count as real.As I had stated the idea of God must be an absolute perfection which cannot be empirical at all, thus never empirically possible [a 90% basis for reality].

I don't have to claim my argument is perfect.Note my argument stand by itself as logically solid and sound.

You have claimed that your argument is perfect, which it isn't in my view, but as has been stated perfection is subjective. So if you believe that, then what can anyone do? I don't really understand how you can attempt to create a sound objective argument on the basis of a subjective premise.

What is objective is subjected to a Framework and System.I have given an objective conclusion within the Framework and System of Logic.I have claimed my argument is perfect [not absolutely perfect], i.e. qualified to the Framework and System of Logic.My syllogism is relatively perfect, you cannot dispute that?

I did not claim the soundness of my argument is perfect, but the evidences and arguments for the two P1 and P2 speak for themselves.If you do not agree, the onus is on you to prove they [one or both] are wrong.

In the past, the majority claim with arrogance their argument for a flat earth theory was perfect. Does that meant no one could argued against it?

Context, application and relevancy, Prismatic. The flat earth theory was due to a lack of empirical evidence. Your argument is purely logic based. Your logic isn't universally correct, it is subject to error, just like everyone else. If anything, the flat earth theory should demonstrate to you how far purely logic based conclusions can err.

It is worst for theists who has not provided any empirical evidence since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness. Note the strength of the belief in God is based on faith, not empirical evidence and not by reason.

My syllogism is perfect relative to the framework and system of logic.Regardless, repeat, you can disprove my argument by proving my P1 or P2 is wrong, using empirical evidence or logical approaches.

The truth will always prevails and the flat earth theory [regardless how perfect it was claimed to be] was subsequently proven wrong with evidence and arguments.

Your argument is based upon the premise that absolute perfection cannot exist, I don't believe that is a sound premise. It makes it seem as though you think you know completely what is possible and what is not, but as I said, human methods of understanding reality are not comprehensive.

I have argued absolute perfection cannot exists within the empirical world which is 90% reality.Your belief don't count, what count are your valid and sound arguments if any.

It is very easy, you can prove my argument is wrong by exposing holes in my P1 or P2.

Either you don't understand or you are pretending not to understand. If your argument is perfect, it cannot be countered, perfection is the absolute.

So what you're claiming whether you know it or not, is that your argument is the absolute best that logic can achieve. You cannot both claim that your argument is perfect, and then accept that may can contain holes, again that is self-contradictory. Its like you're asking to be proven wrong, whilst firmly believing that you cannot be - the whole gist of your dialogue regarding your argument conveys that. You're setting up everyone to fail.

I have stated many times, I did not claim my argument is of absolute perfection.Rather it is relatively perfect, i.e. conditioned upon the framework and system of logic.

You are equivocating here and kept insisting in conflating absolute with relative perfection.I believe the bottle-neck in your resistance is you do not understand the significance of this conflation.

Note I claimed my argument is relative perfect and I [personally] DID NOT claim my premises contain holes. I am confident they do not contain any holes or falsehoods.What I meant was, if you do not accept my argument, then prove to me there are holes [fallacies] in my premises.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.